If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Optimism 4 2005

With all the so-called sports "analysts" repeatedly bashing Isaiah Thomas in typical New York "kick a man when he's down and stomp on his nuts for good measure" fashion after another bad season, I could see with all the crazy trade ideas and fantasy free agents that my fellow fans are starting to feel the effects. New York is "second guess city", a place where you can go from being a genius to a moron in the same season. I remember when the Knicks were 16 and 13, and all the columnists and analysts praised Isaiah for resurrecting the Knicks. Then after the rash of injuries and bad play, he became the laughing stock of all GMs. Somehow though, I am optimistic about next year. Yes fam, y'all can save this post and come at me , but I think Isiah will bring the Knicks back to respectability. Here's why-
1. Most sports talk show hosts bash Isiah for trading Mohammed. I didn't have a problem with it, because even though Mohammed was productive, in the games that I WATCHED, he consistently got beat down the court and was late on defensive rotation, leading to him often getting benched. Check his minutes. Most of his points came off of putbacks, and at center he only averaqed less than one block per game. And another thing, what stats don't show is how many times he WAS ABUSED IN THE PAINT by any starter 6'11 and over with any kind of post game. I lost count of how many times teams so easily got into the paint and dunked with him in the vicinity. DO NOT BE FOOLED BY HIS PRODUCTION with the Spurs. I saw him constantly getting beat even in the finals. With the mid-level exception, we will get a free agent center who along with Frye should solve our shot blocking problems.
2. In most of the Knick losses, the opposing teams played zone defense to take away Marbury and force us to shoot jumpers. The problem was we didn't have good coaching and consistent outside shooting. With q Rich, eventhough his shooting percentage was down last year, we should beat the zone because you cannot leave Q-Rich open, he lead the league in 3 point makes, and can also post. Those of you who hated the k Thomas trade, I liked it because K thomas on offense was a one dimensional jump shooter who at the 4 could not post up. On top of that, he couldn't run the floor very well, you can almost count on one hand how many fast break points we got in each loss. We could could do a sign and trade and get a guy like Swift, or move Frye to the 4(he can run and shoot threes) which would allow us to break the zone. We had no problem scoring when teams played us one on one, so now that we added some more size and another shooter, we'll score more easily.
3. The draft- I like the addition of Nate Robinson more than Frye. All you have to do is envision Robinson, Crawford and Ariza coming off the bench (maybe Lee or Frye) and you got mad energy and defensive intensity. trust me, barring injury, if we keep our young guys we'll have one of the most exciting benches in the league. Last year b4 all the injuries we had a productive bench, but this year, our rookies along with Ariza will be scary. Isiah is turning this team into a running squad, with in today's NBA with the zone D is essential. Our young guys have the potential to be something special.
4. Quit all the trade talk about Marbury- I would trade Marbury only for young talented size including draft picks if we are indeed rebuilding. If we cannot get that, keep him. He is virtually unstoppable, can score on anyone at will, and is only 28. With the right coach, he'll even play defense. In fact, him and Crawford were good at playing the passing lanes, and looked bad last year cause we had no shotblockers. Most guards get beat off the dribble but have the luxury of help defense. We had none. He's labeled as a shoot first point guard, -I don't buy into media labels, they never let a guy shed a negative image until he wins a championship anyway, then somehow he becomes Jesus- he only averaged 13 shots a game and still put in 8.5 assists on a jump shooting team. The kids a beast, surround him with talent, then we see what we do with him from there.
5. Lastly, When Isaiah first came aboard, we had a terrible, unwatchable starting five. And everybody in the media said there was no way we could get any talent anytime soon with all the bad contracts. I do remember Isaiah saying he would have to trade to get players that he could trade, so all of his moves I have no problem with, cause he is really tryting to improve the product on the court. As opposed to a GM that would sit there and do nothing. Eventhough it has not translated on the court yet, I think he is still in the process of getting what he wants, a running team that could also defend. He's only been here a year and a half, and most good GMs don't turn a bad salary cap strapped franchise around until at least 3 years. So give the man another season or two before we run him out!

decent read, but I'm not buying keeping marbury, not for strictly basketball reasons, but for business reasons.

i don't care who we get this summer, short of a legit, dominant Big man, Marbury is not worth 20+ million.

btw, marbury is 29, and will be 30 next year.

i dont wanna repeat everything i've been saying, but Marbury needs to go for many reasons. If, however Isiah can pull of a masterful deal to bring in that dominating big man, then I'm all for keeping him.

Marbury will not be dealt, you mention his age and everything, but you forget the fact that he can get to the hole anytime he wants on anybody, he can create anytime, "he's almost 30" hes consistent, which means kids that there is a certain amount of productivity to expect from him every year, which is 20 AND 8, MARBURY IS STAYING PUT, END OF DISCUSSION

Marbury will not be dealt, you mention his age and everything, but you forget the fact that he can get to the hole anytime he wants on anybody, he can create anytime, "he's almost 30" hes consistent, which means kids that there is a certain amount of productivity to expect from him every year, which is 20 AND 8, MARBURY IS STAYING PUT, END OF DISCUSSION

This is plain ignorant bull****. I think all of you don't quite understand the facets of a trade. All of you simply think that we'd be dealing him b/c he's not the guy to lead us into the playoffs, or we'd be keeping him b/c he's our most consisent and talented player, and he doesnt deserve to be kicked out.

THAT'S NOT WHAT TRADES ARE ALL ABOUT. It's about weighing the pros and cons of keeping Marbury Versus trading him. Then you have to look at your options. It will/would be very hard to find a taker in the first place, but if you do trade him, it's for a talented, legit big, or cap space and picks.

On top of that, trades go much deeper. When you look at the roster, by KEEPING Marbury, you're ensuring that minutes are scarce for Ariza and Nate. Why? B/c in order to ensure Crawford gets his, you have to move Q to SF during most of his minutes, (while Timmy is on the bench), and let Crawford play Sg, and a little bit of point. Ariza and Nate will be the odd men out. That's a very bad thing, b/c we need those 2 to gain experience on the court...

Number 2 - Marbury's knees. None of us know exactly what kind of condition they're in, but when you have a guy that's supposed to be in his prime, having to miss practice b/c of a phantom injury, that can take a toll down the line.

Third -- the mammoth size of his contract. He has 4 years averaging 19 Million..........NINETEEN MILLION.....left. That's alotta money people. And he's making more money now than most of the league's superstars. Not only that, but he hasn't even made an All-Star team in a few years. That's bad. Stats don't always tell the whole story. When you play for a bad team that counts on you, stats don't mean ****...

4th - Lebron James. Keeping Marbury basically counts us out from ever being able to sign James in 07. Trading Marbury gives us more than enough to do so in the future...

Take it for what it is. Personally, I think the roster issue is the most troublesome. But any one of those arguements could sway Isiah & Co. in the coming weeks and months...

Nate Robinson - Wow.....this guy is gonna be something special. It solidifies my belief that losing Marbury will not hurt our backcourt as much as it would seem...

David Lee - plays pretty hard, but haven't seen anything special from him. Can't hit any shots. Might be b/c he's nervous, but at 30, I think thus far we could've done better...

Channing Frye - first thought: Solid. Doesn't do anything that'll take your breath away, but 4 years of college have done him well. He'll end up being very consisent in the pros, although I'm not sure how high his ceiling is...

With Nate Robinson on board, there's no doubt in my mind that Marbury should be dealt. Nate is basically a shorter, younger Marbury with better hops...

you make an excellent point, but is crawford the pointguard marbury is , i dont think so and dont think he will ever be, so next years draft we will be looking for a point. and remember isiah traded for marbury knowing his contract status. I mean crawford would not be stable at point for a whole season. contrary to belief very good pointguards are not a dime a dozen.

That was "plain and ignorant bull****". Who are you to say what a trade is all about?

You have to look at the consequences of trading Marbury. Crawford cannot play the 1. Why should Crawford "get his"? Crawford is not a star and is not even a solid role player yet. He has a long way to go and might take the step to get better this year but he's simply not someone you build around. Notice how we were the only team who even wanted him when he was a free agent last year.
The Knicks are miserable without Marbury and have a pretty good shot at the playoffs with him and a good coach. You act like we have no talent at all. We made the playoffs two years ago with less talent by far.
I said the Nets are a risk because Carter and Kidd have injury histories and you say no and then you tell me that you trade one of the most durable players out there cause his knees are a concern?

Stats can decieve, but Marbury is a very good player and no one in the world would arguing that he's not one of the best PGs talent wise if a coacch can harness it.

WE WILL NOT GET LEBRON.
And you certainly don't build a team around that possibility.